Figur 3. Gapet mellan tillväxten av ny kunskap respektive tillväxten av människans förmåga att absorbera kunskapen. (Fritt efter Robert Junks anförande vid framtidsseminarium i Salzburg1989)
I chose to show this one because interesting to see how we are really becoming a more connected world, This is a picture of inds in Germany working in pharmaceutical industry. The nodes are inds and the different colors represent organizations. Here see that a high degree of inter-collaboration bw inds. What is interesting is that the world is shrinking bc becoming easier and easier to collaborate with others. Just 15 years ago, much more difficult to communicate with others outside of own organization. Had to go to conferences or located in your home town. Research has found that researchers in silicon valley and boston becoming increasingly connected. Now not only easier to communicate with those who do know outside organization, but easier to find others to collaborate with through mailing lists, electronic communities, networking software such as LinkedIn. Spider eating a banana Six degrees of separation Nicola’s aunt in Klippa, Sweden who is not so far from Monica Lewinsky (Nicola knows Fredrik who knows Göran who knows Bill Clinton who knows Monica).
Why are firms implementing a globalization strategy? What are the goals of this strategy?
Talk about what necessary in global firm Building and legitimizing multiple perspectives Dispersed and integrated assets/capabilities Flexible and robust processes for creating, integrating knowledge Global mindset - the key global issue [for GM] is how to transform the organization internally to become globally competitive. Even for employees who may never go overseas, it is necessary to constantly sensitize everyone to the fact that they are in a global business. The Transnational organization attempts to resolve the inherent limitations of the three organisation archetypes Three key characteristics: Builds and legitimizes multiple internal perspectives Dispersed and interdependent physical assets and capabilities (knowledge) Robust and flexible integrative process Subsidiary as semiautonomous identity within a differentiated system Characteristics Configuration of assets and capabilities Multi-domestic Decentralized and nationally self-sufficient Global Dispersed, Interdependent and specialized Role of overseas operation Sensing and exploiting local opportunities Differentiated contributions by national units to integrated worldwide operations Development and diffusion of knowledge Knowledge developed locally and retained within each unit, some transfers Knowledge developed jointly and shared worldwide Power people – who are those with power in heterarchy? These are the ones who in nw, not necessarily those in hierarchical positions
If only HP knew what HP knows. A surprising amount of corporate knowledge is the property of individuals , not the firm. All too often when someone leaves an organization, their knowledge leaves with them . People are not always inclined to create or disseminate knowledge E mbedded knowledge is hard to extract – contained in systems, practices, structures. – employees frequently spend large amount of time reinventing the wheel. Attract and retain key individuals - this is very important benefit that often forgotten. Can’t have leading organization without leading individuals. Can’t expect to attract them if not working with leading edge practices and technologies. Nor expect to retain them if you do not provide opportunities for innovation, creativity, to use their intellectual prowess.
Common starting point is to classify knowledge into categories. Data - facts, observations, data points. Not meaningful when out of context. Example is just a number, Information - results from data being put into some meaningful context. eg, number of patients cared for during year. Knowledge is information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection to guide task execution What is useful is to think that information and knowledge are not depleted when used and actually grow as shared. information tends to be more tangible, easily transferable and reproducible. Organizational value on one axis, degree of interpretation, understanding on other axis. Difficulty to transfer increases Collective knowledge provides a more solid base for competitive advantage than individual knowledge. More difficult to copy, steal. This collective knowledge developed in a social process
Important dimension of knowledge is tacit vs articulate. Another well-known example of this is how do we recognize faces? Knowledge that is written, spoken or expressed in documents, Knowledge that is intuitive and difficult to explain Knowledge on other hand tends to be more intangible, tacit context, affects meaning, transfer requires learning, and are not easily reproducible. To rephrase Polanyi, orgs know more than they can say (K&Z) What we see is extent to which knowledge can be codified. Golf example, reading manual does not teach you how to play golf. Relating this to organizations can also possess tacit knowledge, eg to be innovative, try to describe how Sony or HP creates new process. But clearly not something that can be learned by another organization. Knowledge or know-how has to do with process of learning, understanding, and applying information Tacit group knowledge – team coordination, tacit organizational knowledge – corporate culture
From individual knowledge to organizational knowledge While organizations cannot create knowledge without individuals, unless individual knowledge is shared with other individuals and groups, the knowledge will have a limited impact on organizational effectiveness. This then leads to a challenge within KM, that of disseminating knowledge within the organization. One finding 158 of 200 execs in large mncs found that most successful methods for turning knowledge into practical results come from informal employee networks and other workplace practices and not from databases or manuals, etc. Four important constructs underlie the perceptions of social context in organizations (Scott, 1995): organizational identity, goals, norms, and power structures. Briefly, a DWE's organizational identity depicts "who we are as an organization;" the goals define "what is our purpose;" the norms indicate "how we do things as an organization;" and the power structures signal "who has power to influence the actions of others."
End this session with our definition of KM What do we mean when we say that an organization is a learning organization? Students will immediately focus on transfer, but it is important to get out that transfer is not the only feature of learning. Also, need to get ideas that are necessary for transfer. How do we get ideas necessary for transfer? Eventually someone will say something about generation of ideas. And perhaps, because they have had it before, someone may simply just say variation-selection-retention. Benchmarking is the process of identifying, understanding, and adapting outstanding practices from organizations, including your own, anywhere in the world. Benchmarking teams are formed to assess the current state of the organization on a particular process, identify gaps and problems, and then search for best practices outside the company. Generate internally Innovation in R&D laboratories or projects Cross-fertilization of ideas, new combinations Experimentation and challenge Internal customers and suppliers Domain experts Generate externally Through customer/client interaction Learning through JVs, alliances, acquisitions “ Scanner units” in leading edge clusters Hiring key people from competitors Corporate espionage, business intelligence Supporting external informal networks Organize Collect, validate, and filter Represent in databases, documents, pointers, etc. Determine how to best organize for efficient retrieval Disseminate Determine appropriate means, e.g., meetings, newsletters, etc. Push vs pull Embed Embed in processes, products, and/or services Learning by doing
What do we mean by this? We need to think about a company’s strategy and the role of strategy in KM. Which activities do you want to emphasize or deemphasize. This is where the role of strategy comes in. What do we mean by strategy? Three simple questions Just implementing standard IT solutions in companies such as Cap Gemini or developing high-level strategic solutions for clients. McKinsey example - high-level strategic solutions for clients. Use environment within strategy. Creating through brainstorming sessions with people from across offices. Difficult to codify so create database with description of people to contact. People within strategy practice. Embed through office rotation.
Communications and messaging to get at tacit knowledge Discuss here that databases are important but dont rely so heavily on these, need to think about what knowledge to put into them and who access, how to structure. Too easy to become info junkyards
Few success examples where you can rely on the stated benefit with databases
Where do people sit when come from abroad – the conference room?
This good to show - how create COE, what should center around??? For example, GM uses what they refer to as internal consulting teams to collect information about best manufacturing processes and to disseminate them to other plants world-wide. Good for development of mutual knowledge, tacit knowledge Can be seen as formalized informal network of competence But go from competence to capability Established only in areas of strategic importance Heart of COE was leading edge knowledge of small group of individuals who responsible for maintenance and development of knowledge (between one and 10) All had dual role – both to transfer current responsibilities Can also be virtual, but then this more like CP What area of knowledge think should have a COE around? Individuals in COEs then either placed on teams and/or develop materials and training courses
My research at three different companies, Cap Gemini, Icon Medialab, and Ericsson. What do you think used most?
See that increasingly through informal networks that info is found and work gets done. Considerable research done on communities of practice, networks of practice. Temporary structures – cps Why do you think this way? Easier than following the traditional chains, don’t know the person, prestige, speak same language, identify with individual, trust. Result is that informal structure better at promoting flexibility, innovation, efficiency Yet unfortunately, mgt in many orgs do not pay attention or provide these networks with resources. Often know little about our own networks outside the closest 5-6 people. And in fact we often treat as invisible enemy, can’t see it, can’t manage it, and one that keeps decisions from being made and work from getting done. But today hope to deepen your understanding of these networks. Company’s intelligence is in its social systems, not in its computer systems – this is data. Tools for developing mutual knowledge
Infrastructure services firm
Communities of Practice: Boundary spanning A channel for knowledge to flow Means to strengthen the social fabric The locus of knowledge creation and use Solve the problem of getting knowledge to those who need it. COPs, more than any other organization, develop strong feelings of social capital Communication and Ke exchange a regular part of COPs Development of special codes and routines (overlapping knowledge) Training new members - mix of experts/novices New ideas easily flow War stories and gossip critical for exchanging knowledge
End this session with our definition of KM
1. Knowledge sharing – learning To share critical knowledge to support problem-solving in daily ongoing business practices to transfer and implement best practices 2. Knowledge creation – incremental innovation To improve business processes and change work practices 3. Knowledge creation – radical innovation To create new strategic knowledge by developing new products that are implemented successfully in the market
Typically arose out of customers’ unmet demands in local marketplace Leveraging local competitive strengths Seek to develop a new product, market or process through opportunities that first identified in subsidiary’s home market
Alliances - In addition, they found that successful collaboration between university and industry was often the result of emergent personal relationships. Kreiner & Schulz RD - 40% of potential solutions and opportunities derived from personal external contacts powell et al - interorganizational networks in biotech industry provide knowledge critical to innovation mgt unaware of what going on - 10 vs 57 ongoing efforts at partnering in multinational telecom company.
Important to involve participants in design of program Don’t underestimate time needed to organize and run program, to understand participant needs, and to make purpose clear from beginning Online user communities – Innovation stemming from interactions between users.
End this session with our definition of KM Our KM vision is “BP knows what it knows, learns what it needs to learn, and uses knowledge to create overwhelming sustainable advantage.”
Why didn't knowledge and practices transfer? It wasn't because people are inherently turf-protecting, knowledge-hoarding beings. Szulanski found that the number one, biggest barrier to the transfer was ignorance. And ignorance on both ends of the transfer. At most companies, particularly large ones, neither the "source" nor the "recipient" knew someone else had knowledge they required or would be interested in knowledge they had. The most common response from employees was either "I did not know that you needed this" or "I did not know that you had it.“ Once they recognized that a better practice existed, the second biggest barrier to transfer was the absorptive capacity of the recipient: Even if a manager knew about the better practice, he or she may have had neither the resources (time or money) nor enough practical detail to implement it. The third barrier to transfer was the lack of a relationship between the source and the recipient of knowledge—i.e., the absence of a personal tie, credible and strong enough to justify listening to or helping each other, stood in the way of transfer. Finally, Szulanski found that even in the best of firms, in-house best practices took an average of 27 months to wind their way from one part of the organization to another.
Most people have a natural desire to learn, to share what they know, and to make things better. This natural desire is thwarted by a variety of logistical, structural, and cultural hurdles that organizations create. These include: • Organizational structures that promote "silo" behavior, in which locations, divisions, and functions are so focused on maximizing their own accomplishments and rewards that they, consciously or unconsciously, hoard information and thereby suboptimize the total organization. A leadership team and culture supportive of transfer requires a common focus and common fate. Without it, people have little incentive to overcome other obstacles that time and space create. • A culture that values personal technical expertise and knowledge creation over knowledge sharing. This is rampant in engineering and knowledge-based organizations, such as consulting and research firms. Another cultural barrier is the "not-invented-here" syndrome and the lack of experience learning from outside one's own small group. Benchmarking has dramatically changed this culture in many organizations. • The lack of contact, relationships, and common perspectives among people who don't work side by side. In most organizations, the left hand not only doesn't know what the right hand is doing, but it also may not even know there is a right hand. There is a need to create and catalogue the corporate memory of an organization's expertise and abilities so others can build networks and new solutions together. • An over-reliance on transmitting "explicit" rather than "tacit" information. Most of the important information people need to implement a practice cannot be codified or written down—it has to be shown to them or it requires dialogue and interactive problem solving. Just creating databases will not cause change to happen. Polanyi' and Nonaka'' both have pointed out the importance and value of recognizing and trying to capture tacit knowledge—the know-how, judgment, intuition, and little tricks that constitute the noncodifiable knowledge that may make the difference between failure and success in the transfer. Jerry Baker of National Semiconductor says that the company's research shows that 80 percent of the knowledge that needs to be transferred is in the noncodifiable arena: "It may be that somebody held their tongue just right as they pulled the wafers out of the oven, and that's what made things work." • Not allowing or rewarding people for taking the time to learn and share and help each other outside of their own small corporate village. Time demands are enormous—unless capturing and sharing information are built into the work processes, sharing will not happen.
Here I would like to show the results of a study in the construction industry with colleague, Andy Schenkel. This illustrates how two departments can have completely different informal networks and connectedness. The one to left did not meet the structural properties of a community, while the one to the right did. As you can visually see Department 1 is disconnected no clear core or periphery not particularly dense In contrast, Department 2 is well connected has a core with numbers 77 and 82 forming it and a periphery it also appears to be dense
Can use this to look at one organizational unit, this picture shows the programmers of the stockholm office of one IT multinational. See that well-connected. Good knowledge flows here as well. The Icon Stockholm programmer community was very well connected, indicating a high degree of knowledge flow. But I use this example, bc want to illustrate key players in this network. They are the central connectors. Central information source for everyone in network. In most cases, these individuals are not formally designated go-to people in unit. Provide help or pointers to others if can’t help. In many cases these individuals are high performers. Interestingly when we showed this picture to management, they knew of three of these but the fourth one was a total surprise. Interesting bc this person was different from mgt, woman programmer. Challenge with these individuals is that even though recognized by their colleagues, often their efforts go unrecognized and unrewarded, yet spend a good amount of time filling this task. Organizations use different kinds of rewards, nominated for best helper, one example is bank that changed its bonus scheme rewarded individuals for their ability to improve communication within unit, to be connectors based on evaluations by fellow employees. McK in semi-annual evaluation process. Mostly positive roles but these individuals can also play power games, using connecting role for private benefit, pitting networks against each other, hoarding information. Sometimes even people just overloaded. Found that this person was a bottleneck, while many people went to this person for help, could not help everyone, so people frustrated. Think about how design teams or redesign jobs, rotating people also. One organization conducted analysis and restaffed teams combining members of both networks. If overloaded, can implement mailing lists, discussion boards to try to reduce workload on central connector
Here show the multinational’s networks of programmers. While large office of Stockholm was very well connected, can see with this that many isolated islands of competence. Even though management spent considerable effort on IT systems to get people to communicate across units, very few doing so.
What values/beliefs do you need on the part of individuals in order for this learning system to work? Norm of reciprocity though note norm of generalized reciprocity as opposed to dyadic reciprocity Dyadic reciprocity = I feel obligation to you because you have done for me Generalized reciprocity = I feel obligated to system of relations because the system of relations has given back to me Dyadic reciprocity is not hard to build. Dyadic reciprocity is one of the most general norms across all cultures. Anthropologists have found few if any societies in which individuals do not adhere to a norm of dyadic reciprocity. However, generalized reciprocity is much harder to pull off. Trust in senior management and in others that efforts will be noted Belief that you get some useful knowledge in return when you give Belief in experimentation/taking risks Make it rewarding, fun
Here is one simple way of thinking about them…...
Higher turnover at companies these days. Not life-time employee, many restructurings, acquisitions, etc. People always thinking about where go next. Inds bells and whistles Don’t know if working on your problem or someone else’s, including the competition’s Also often project managers leading technical specialists and do not understand what working with. Difficult to know whether really should take so much time or not. Individual working on computer, often don’t know what working on or for whom.
Is knowledge trading good or bad for a company’s competitive advantage? Here is a quotation from an interview. Talking about his collaboration with an ex-colleague, now at competing firms. But often only do this with trusted others or if an open secret, i.e., others can access this with certain amount of effort, get more back than give away, consciously trading Looked at mini mill steel industry and found evidence of a positive relationship bw know-how trading and firm perf. Look at open source
Interesting question as well. Who really owns the kn? More seen as organization info seen as owned by organization, but more inds saw that expertise that had built up during work at company then owned by ind and can take with them or give to others. No non-competes in Silicon Valley
Network theory shown that those in central position most successful, whether subsidiary, individual, company, etc. Why? Resources reside in network of relationships and not subsidiary Subsidiary has different resources: human, financial, physical Subsidiary embedded in a structure of relationships Tangible Physical: Machines, labor Financial: capital Information: data Intangible Power, autonomy Knowledge: advice, skills Social support: trust, commitment Reputation: referrals Identity: culture, values, norms of behavior In today’s MNCs – many units are forced to both compete and cooperate with one another. Competing for internal resources and competences within organization. Rewards depend upon performance in external market in relation to other units
(1) Deployment: easily getting the right skills to where they are needed in the organization regardless of geographical location; (2) Knowledge and innovation dissemination: spreading state of the art knowledge and practices throughout the organization regardless of where they originate; and, (3) Identifying and developing talent on a global basis: identifying who has the ability to function effectively in a global organization and developing those abilities.
Icon example of 1100 different titles for 1700 people Keep detail level high, focus on what is core for company – relates to global strategy Merck - Employees lower in the organization are less likely to be relocated globally and thus fewer data are required about them for the GHRIS. One Dow executive commented that to be truly valuable, a GHRIS must be a dynamic tool, evolving over time. He also said that this is easy to say, but something of a headache to implement. One significant gap between the ideal and the reality of a GHRIS is the ability to combine universal access with standardized information. Amoco uses a kiosk system to allow employees to enter information about themselves but has found that not all employees have the ability to do this. Dow has faced the same challenge and has decided to sacrifice universal access for completeness of standardized information. Ericsson Professional competencies – technical related to operations, financial expertise, etc. Business – knowledge about customers, core businesses, business language Human – interpersonal skills, communication skills, attitudes towards teamwork, knowledge sharing, cultural awareness Five competence levels from trainee to expert Ericsson has implemented SAP R/3 as global solution, SAP HRMS
Trainee – 1 Expert – 5 Let’s now move to thinking about how you would actually roll this model downstream. What is important to get learning mechanisms built up in BP Oil? Need cultural values/trust How do you get? Students can talk for a while, but in subsequent discussions that we had with BP, they emphasized the importance of getting people to trust one another and getting them comfortable with routines for learning. So, they started peer groups on small scale and got them focusing on simple knowledge sharing and not peer challenge (i.e., no critiquing). But, this is important. Need to get people comfortable with behaviors/processes through routinization. Need to make people understand that knowledge sharing and being part of global firm is part of everyday way of working
Russia – focus on managerial ability at Ericsson. Ability to evaluate one’s strengths and weaknesses was good indicator of managerial potential. Also looked for teamwork but difficult to determine in advance China – Involve line managers Whirlpool example of group problem-solving exercise to look at collaborative relationships GE 2x2 matrix when Jack Welch took over
Cisco example Interesting now that companies changing from hiring fresh graduates to mid-career professionals recruitment and selection (SMILE at Matsushita – specialty – the needed skill, capability, knowledge; management ability – particularly motivational; international flexibility – willingness to learn and ability to adapt; language facility; and endeavor – vitality, perseverance in face of difficulty) Recruit for attitude and desired background as well as for skill
McKinsey and HP examples BP - 80% division/unit results, 20% individual results Recognize key players Connectors Show network map Make explicit that part of their job Base bonus, perf appraisals on this. One bank had employees rate each other in terms of ability to link people. Those who greatly improved employee communications were rewarded bigger bonuses, this against traditional way of basing on profits. How to improve their position? Boundary spanners Make sure making right connections Help to improve/expand external connections Bonuses One company that helped boundary spanners improve networks wi organization had much better integration one year later and also winning more projects. Peripheral specialists May not want to become an integrated part of organization, so don’t force, Link central connector to them Provide with challenging problems This creates job satisfaction and people willing to stay as well as others want to work for your organization.
Lack of punishment for failure Prestige Appreciation Understanding that one can only rise so far in the organization without helping others Make fun Note that these are informal and symbolic. Can ask whether or not it would make sense to give formal rewards ? Answer is probably no. Hard to figure out what and how to measure. Also problem of measuring too many things. Also, people are just intrinsically motivated (can refer back to Staw’s story about oversufficient justification: people derive less intrinsic motivation from something that they are paid for, but it is probably not necessary to refer back to this.) Hewlett Packard, McKinsey Develop corporate level goals Encourage reciprocity (dyadic vs general) Promote recognition of efforts Believe in experimentation, taking risks Accept failure
Local labor, taxation laws and work policies for compensation, employee selection, career devt In China and Russia, mission very important. Need clearly articulated values, purpose and constantly communicated and reinforced due to insecurity Dual control and evaluation systems Leaders who operate with lateral decision making Culture that can negotiate open conflict and balance of power Managers jockey for power in organizations, but a matrix design almost encourages them to do so. Davis & Lawrence 1978 Formal structure, systems and relationships, culture Clear vision, effectively managed human resource tools,
Masculinity is positively related to knowledge acquisition Thus, individuals from more masculine countries, e.g., Finland and Norway, acquire more knowledge from participation in the NCN MS electronic community than individuals from more feminine countries, e.g., Swedes and Danes. A possible explanation is that people in more masculine cultures work more and thus are more likely to participate in the NCN MS electronic community. Uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to knowledge acquisition. However, uncertainty avoidance is also positively related to knowledge contribution Thus, Finnish respondents were found to have a higher degree of knowledge contribution than the Swedish respondents. (Only Finns and Swedes were included in this model due to the poor number of respondents.) Perhaps Finnish respondents feel more comfortable answering questions than posing them. In addition, an answer from an unknown person in an unregulated and informal network may not be perceived as credible in a culture scoring high on uncertainty avoidance. Thus, individuals coming from countries with higher scores on this dimension, e.g., Finland and Norway, acquired less knowledge from participation in the NCN MS electronic community than those from countries with lower scores, e.g, Sweden and Denmark. There are no formal rules of conduct for an electronic community and participation requires that participants act in a flexible manner.
GM also incorporates a training component in the form of short-term cross-function transfers and/or cross-plant training. This can be a mechanism for innovation dissemination. GM has found that rotated employees must demonstrate technical competence to be accepted at the overseas site. As one GM executive described it: If the need is to cultivate openness and develop cross-cultural awareness, it has to be done early in one's career. However, the reality is that those who go overseas first have to demonstrate technical competence to be accepted in a different location, and this is more necessary than cultural awareness.
This because feels awkward to just call up someone don’t know or if called. Why should I help you?
Novartis – individuals can create resume type profile and subscribe to service that sends notification of when a new job matches person’s profile. Encourages movement in company New hire integration programs – rotation through departments, training programs, lunches, At GM, the SWAT team takes the form of an expert network, internal consultants deployed throughout the organization. The actual amount of time spent overseas varies with the purpose or project but in general is under three months.
There is a structured way of going about ”managing” informal networks. Today share with you some of the findings from my research and from the gurus in the US. Identify informal network where effective collaboration adn kn sharing has sig impact on organization’s operations and strategy. So many networks out there but you don’t need to understand all of them. Good for up to 50 individuals, then should look at sub-networks Simple, 10-15 minutes to do, make list of people and ask all to characterize relationship with one another Think process here, not function Make sure think through sensitivity of issues, do pretest Hierarchical leadership style Physical dispersion and virtual work Politics ” Knowledge is power” behavior ” Not invented here” mentality Overloading workflow processes or job descriptions Interview key players, i.e., connectors, boundary spanners, peripheral specialists
Are central connectors hoarding info? Is unit too isolated? Are boundary spanners talking with right people? Is unit losing technical expertise? Think about how design teams or redesign jobs, rotating people also. Restaff teams to override hoarding connectors. One organization conducted analysis and restaffed teams combining members of both networks. If overloaded, can implement mailing lists, discussion boards to try to reduce workload on central connector Shift responsibilities, Put in mailing list, discussion boards, socnet example
Honesty and integrity – as core values. We have emphasized importance of building foundation of trust and routinizing learning behaviors. Stated simply, employees (like children) must learn how to learn.
From my research of three multinationals, found real difference bw behaviors. In one firm, inds not interested in collaborating in networks and sharing kn with others. Very difficult to rotate, change offices, all mgrs interested in holding on to own people. Easier to recruit from outside the firm than transfer within the firm. Not so in the second firm. Get help easily and not only that, there are 12 different ways to rotate at this company.
Also, need to have clear vision of where going. What is the primary goal that keeps everyone together? This key to help people think about what trading and what getting.
Did some research in which HP one of companies. Found that this company really understood the importance of informal networks both in terms of ”managing” the informal structure but also in terms of the visionary organization. Interestingly, HP doing network maps based on email communication. Would like to do something similar here.
While research that shows this relationship, thought it would be best to show what I have found in my research. Here have rd operations of three multinationals, Xerox, Ericsson, and HP. Found that HP had highest of three in terms of perf indicators that looked at.
We have summarized the benefits in these four points. If only HP knew what HP knows. A surprising amount of corporate knowledge is the property of individuals , not the firm. All too often when someone leaves an organization, their knowledge leaves with them . People are not always inclined to create or disseminate knowledge E mbedded knowledge is hard to extract – contained in systems, practices, structures. – employees frequently spend large amount of time reinventing the wheel. Attract and retain key individuals - this is very important benefit that often forgotten. Can’t have leading organization without leading individuals. Can’t expect to attract them if not working with leading edge practices and technologies. Nor expect to retain them if you do not provide opportunities for innovation, creativity, to use their intellectual prowess.